Opinion: Shooting DNG on the Sigma sd Quattro H is a game changer

Introduction

With the changing of the seasons comes a big change in how I shoot Sigma cameras.ISO 100 | 1/1600 sec | F5.6Photo by Carey Rose

Fifteen years.

That's how long it's been since the release of the SD9, Sigma's first digital camera, which was also the first camera to use the layered Foveon sensor design. From then on, for better or for worse, Sigma has continued to refine its unique layered sensors. While no one will argue that their cameras are capable of insanely sharp output, you still have to put up with an awful lot of shortcomings.

Early on, there was the low pixel density. And there's still poor battery life. And Huge file sizes. Long card write times. Heat. Lots of heat. (And there's plenty of other image quality concerns, as well).

But significantly, fifteen years is also the length of time we've had to use Sigma's Photo Pro software to get any sort of decent results from these cameras. In the early days, you were almost forced into it, as the SD9 didn't shoot JPEGs and Adobe Camera Raw support that was present up until the Merrills was laughable or simply non-existent. So until now, if you wanted to shoot Raw on a Sigma digital camera, you'd have to fire up Sigma Photo Pro and wait. And wait. And wait some more. And then relaunch it once it crashes, because crashing was a foregone conclusion (though to be fair, it is far less stable on Mac OS than Windows).

We as a staff collectively find, even above and beyond all of Foveon's shortcomings, that the biggest hurdle to using Sigma cameras is their very own software. Even now, in the year 2017, Sigma Photo Pro is just painfully slow and unstable.

But Sigma is that rare company that listens to its customers. Last year while at CP+ in Japan our Technical Editor Rishi Sanyal was afforded a rare opportunity to sit down with the ever-charming, warmly receptive and almost unusually frank Sigma CEO Kazuto Yamaki and talk all things camera and optics. One of the topics covered was the usability of Sigma cameras, where we re-stressed the common request for wider Raw support of Sigma cameras but, more importantly, outlined what might go into making the most flexible DNG possible from Foveon Raw data. Just a short year later, the new sd Quattro interchangeable lens cameras can shoot DNG format Raw files straight out of the camera.

A hearty thank you.

And this just might be what Sigma needed to do to bring Foveon tech to the mass market - a place it really hasn't been before.

Sigma + DNG = <3

The sd Quattro cameras' ability to shoot in DNG means is that you can finally edit your Foveon Raw files using a converter other than Sigma Photo Pro. As you might expect, there's a few caveats. When you enable DNG capture on the Quattro H, you don't have an option to simultaneously capture a JPEG (although there is a whopping 13MB JPEG embedded in every DNG, should you want to dig it out).

The highest resolution output you can get from these is 25.6MP, which is the same resolution as the top sensor layer, as opposed to the upscaled 51MP files that are possible when shooting JPEG in-camera or using Sigma Photo Pro with an X3F file (but if you think you might want those files, check out the comparison at the end of our samples gallery). And while upscaled 51MP may sound suspect, the pixel-level sharpness of the Foveon files means it may not be as gimmicky as it initially sounds (we'll reserve final judgement until after our in-depth testing).

Lastly, you'd better have a big memory card - the DNG files weigh in at around ~150MB each*. For comparison, uncompressed Raw files from the Nikon D810, Sony a7R II and Fujifilm GFX 50S weigh in at around 70MB, 85MB and 110MB, respectively (and two out of those three offer lossless compression to bring those sizes down anyhow).

Out-of-camera white balance

Adjusted in Adobe Camera Raw

Despite setting the white balance manually in-camera, the default DNG output was too yellow for my taste, but adjustments in ACR were a breeze. Click through to see the crazy sharpness.

Okay, enough with the caveats. Opening these DNG files in Adobe Camera Raw is an almost surreal experience. You still get the absolutely astounding crystalline sharpness Sigma's cameras are known for, but now you can make any adjustment you'd ordinarily make to a Raw file, and with a decently powerful computer, it all happens in real time. No more making a small adjustment and waiting ten seconds (or thirty) for a full re-render.

So far, the files appear as flexible as one would expect from Raw: white balance works wonderfully, and you can turn all noise reduction and sharpening off. We're still examining if the 12 bit DNGs are losslessly gamma compressed 14-bit data as we'd asked for, but it's not clear this would matter anyway: 12-bit DNGs and 14-bit X3Fs show similar flexibility thus far, which makes sense given the comparatively lower base ISO dynamic range of these cameras.

The fun factor

So editing the DNG files is great, even if you need to pick up a couple extra hard drives to store them. But the real kicker for me is that it changed the way I shoot this camera relative to previous Sigmas. It's just more fun.

ISO 100 | 1/500 sec | F4Photo by Carey Rose

I ended up using the camera more and taking more photos just to see how the camera would render various scenes - and I was regularly blown away. I no longer had to worry about living with the JPEGs and poor white balance, and I didn't have to go through a whole batch of X3F files over the span of an entire evening with Sigma Photo Pro.

Previous Foveon cameras I've used were good for some quirky fun, but I never really considered picking them up off the shelf after we'd put the wraps on our older sample gallery. But now, without the workflow woes of the past, the sd Quattro H is something I'm going to be using a lot more often. If you've never tried a Sigma camera before, now is the time to pick one up and have a go for yourself.

*Foveon sensors don't directly capture red, green and blue information, nor do they require the demosaicing process required by Bayer sensors, so they require totally different processing (hence the historic lack of good Raw support). The Quattro H performs the necessary deconvolution and interpolation process required to derive red, green and blue information for each pixel, so that the Raw processing software doesn't need to. Unfortunately that means having to save three 12-bit values for every pixel (which, given the lower resolution of the camera's lower two layers, means storing twice as much data as was actually captured), resulting in 150MB files.

Comments

Please stop complaining about Sigma Photo Pro, upgrade your hardware instead. I use a 2016 Lenovo ideapad 700 with an i7-6700 HQ processor and SSD.SPP 6.5.1 runs nearly as fast and as well as Lightroom 5.7.1. And the X3 Fill Light slider in SPP is just magical.

Sigma's slow, heats up fast, consumes a lot of power and all the negative blah ...

but show me its great quality of image from other cameras offering same or similar size sensors made by non-Sigma sensor makers!

end of rant.

ps: not a real fan of Sigma for its namesake, already a Pentax rider, moving towards Medium Frame and larger formats (digital, film) as soon as i could afford it ... but if i could afford it now, i might skip digital MF altogether and get a Sigma instead!

ps2: with all the great image quality of Sigma sensors since day one, do we really need RAW?

yes, DNG RAW for compatibility is certainly good when we consider Sigma's own software is not much ... but hey, this is not they type of camera i'm going to use daily and shoot thousands of action shots in a sport or wedding event for example! this is the type of camera i'm going to use only occasionally and for mostly still shots in the studio and possibly for some landscapes outside too ...

I do too Roland. Thank you VERY MUCH . . . and you SHOULD have been thanked by them too, if that is indeed what happened. Maybe they had that in mind already, and you and your group beat them to the punch, but who knows? Hopefully, if they learned from Kalpanika, then soon you and the other programmers will receive some sort of thanks . . . maybe a trip to the next big introduction event, or maybe a free camera. I think they should have already sent everyone in your group a free SD Quattro H, if they learned about the DNG capability from Kalpanika. Maybe it sticks in their craw that they didn't come up with it themselves though. Maybe they are too proud to admit that people who don't even work for them could create something they didn't/couldn't. I think they should ask you to help them, and I think they should be very generous with equipment and free flights to Japan and free hotel stays and some money too, considering how many more cameras they are going to sell.

I am a fan of the Low Res function.Maybe it is more emotional than logical, but like Robert Frank said: "The eye should learn to listen before it looks".Buy the dp2 quattro used for around 500.– (250.– for the body and 250.– for the lens) , thats the best bargain you can get!And at the end, its all about light

#thebuldgeinallthewrongplaces... as an old Foveon fan - coming all the way from the SD9 - that SLR style bayonet mount with long lens registration was a stab in the heart.Making the use of symmetric lenses impossible, annoys me more than the horrible files and processing speed these new Sigma cameras provide. I really wanted to buy an "H" style Sigma but in a modern smaller package and with SD14 dynamic range and image quality. Who needs a camera that only aims at resolution - but forgets the rest ?

It DOESN'T only aim at resolution and forget the rest. Have you ever used an SD14? Mine were slow as molasses. My SD1 Merrill is about as fast, and the SD Quattro H is a lot faster than either one. The SD Quattro H, like the SD Quattro, gives live view capability, so you can fine focus manually, using the magnified view. The SD Quattro H is capable of low res. mode. It's about the same weight as the SD1 Merrill. It is basically a replacement for the SD1 Merrill, but with an EVF, so you can see in the dark and fine focus with magnified view through the viewfinder as well as with the rear screen, and it operates without the mirror slap of a DSLR. There are many reasons they kept the same mount as the SD1 Merrill. For you to call it a "stab in the heart" is ridiculous! Don't you like the ability to use your lenses without having to buy a special adapter and having the "looseness" and electrical contact issues of putting an adapter in between the camera and your lens?

Blame DxO Optics Pro. That product has never opened any DNG file created by Adobe DNG Converter or LR, no matter what camera raw file is used, so the Adobe-compatible Sigma DNG file was never going to be any different.

People have asked DxO to allow Adobe DNG files, but no. They say, "We understand the issue with this format and here is an explanation: a DNG file cannot be used as just another RAW input file, since it does not contain all the calibration data Optics Pro uses when processing RAW files (especially, but not only, for the denoising algorithm). Therefore, even if Optics Pro could process DNG files without the data it requires, it could not achieve the same quality level as with an original RAW file, and we do not believe people who shoot RAW would be interested in such a substandard solution... This is the reason why Optics Pro only supports the DNG files generated by the cameras we calibrated in our labs..."

@Scottelly.Time saver? Depends on the application. Sports Professionals with deadlines. Yes. The rest of us would probably do well with slowing down a bit. I don't need to edit film. I just look through my prints or slides. I only need to scan the keepers and enjoy doing so. I don't need to look over thousands of files trying to salvage my next masterpiece. I know a keeper when I see it. It comes down to a simple yes or no with film. I get more keepers with film because I ask myself that question before pressing the shutter. Yes or no. Most people waste a lot of time with digital, chimping to see if they can fix it in post. And the. Spending hours going through too many time wasters.

Yeah because, you know, Velvia has such a huge dynamic range ;P One of the great regrets of my life is using Velvia for large format photography. so much I formation lost. Anything below about five stops from full exposure is rendered as pure, high-density black. Towards the end of my film shooting I switched to E100G, which scans nicely. Velvia is/was only suitable if your end product was a projector or light table.

if we talk about accuracy, EPN is the one. The saturation and the contract of EPN is not as high as other positive film and so it was very match with realistic scene. It is the film for scanning and printing industry. However, most of the decision makers or photo editors didn't know the advantage of EPN and they picked the most eye popping images (high saturated/contract photo) from later positive film stocks and this culture forced the photographers using other films and to match the taste of the editors. There is no film other than EPN ( and 160T) can reproduce silver tone with excellent colour balance. Digital images from digital camera nowadays should have better reproduction accuracy than film but due to the same situation as old day, the people prefer high saturation/contract picture. Camera manufactures decide to tune the colour profile to suit the taste for vast public, the result of market driven economic. EPN is not a good seller indeed.....

well, slide film is generally more accurate than the old 3 color layer negative films, (4 layer films much better). for studio product, back in the day, we used Ektachrome 100 (Lf) did 1/3 or 1/2 stop brackets after polaroid tests and listened to the separators complain. the best of the worst. digital is so good for controlling process color. different world.

@Lars V - Agree with some, but not all of your post. I agree with your statement about narrow dynamic range and shadows blocking, but large format. In the right light setting and accurate exposure, Velvia is terrific. I use it in my Mamiya 7. A very high resolution film.The late professional mountain photographer, Galen Rowell, first used Kodachrome 25(also very narrow latitude) and then switched to Velvia 50.Look at his site.

Kodacolor200 wrote, "the main advantage digital has over colour film is colour accuracy." I don't agree. I believe the main advantage digital has over color film is that you can shoot for free . . . with no processing involved . . . and immediately review what you shot, to see if indeed you had the exposure and focus right (and to see that your shot did not have motion blur). The more you shoot, the more you will improve (to a degree), and digital cameras have accelerated the number of photos I have been able to shoot. I NEVER would have shot hundreds of thousands of photos if I was still shooting film. That would have cost me more money than I make (just the film and processing . . . never mind the scanning). Digital is also a HUGE time saver. Then there are so many other things, such as the lower noise levels in high-ISO shots, the ability to switch ISO from one shot to the next and back, etc. etc. Color accuracy is another advantage, but I wouldn't dream that it's the #1 advantage.

@Scotelly. Shooting for free? Well I would disagree with the economics there. Digital full frame cameras are expensive. Most people shoot less than 50,000 frames before deciding that they need an upgrade. This equates to about 30- 40 cents a shot for you average full frame camera based on a shutter rating of 100,000. I can shoot film for around that price per shot and I get a physical consequence (much better for learning) and a far more enjoyable experience.

Shooting thousand of frames will not make you a better photographer if the mind set is "free" it will just likely reinforce bad habits. You don't learn from mistakes the same as you do with film because you delete them.

Film makes you think more therefore you actually learn more shooting it. You have to live with the consequences as they are tactile. I shoot digital with the same discipline as film and I am a better photographer for it. I don't see any benefits of digital beside ISO and colour balance over film.

The numbers game of shooting thousands of frames to get a few keepers is just not my idea of photography.

Gotta love how the minds of critics on here work. Photography is about the image, so Sigma make a range of cameras that produce incredible results and everyone bleats about something.

Of course photography is not just about IQ, but it is pretty seminal and for the money, Sigma cameras offer eye-wateringly sharp images at ISO 100 that MF systems costing 10x as much would envy.

Examine the portraits, especially the detail in the irises. Quite incredible. But instead dorks on here talk about the photos being soulless and too noisy at 1 billion ISO or whatever they think is important.

Sigma cameras are not point and shoots and they are not take-everywhere, shoot-anything cameras either. They are precision instruments for static, fine art photos and portraits, preferably using a tripod. If you used them, you'd understand.

Agreed on all points , I tested the waters with a SD14 back in 2011 and was completely blown away with the results . I then went and upgraded to the DP2 Merrill and had a 60in x 40in and was speechless at those results (now using the SD1 Merrill and EX lenses), I've shot 5x4 film in the past and I'd say the Sigma is bloody close. Also had a chance to have a play with a SDQ-H and a couple of Art lenses recently and was stunned yet again, to the point where I'm looking to trade everything to upgrade to the SDQ-H and a 35 Art.

Yeah sure sigma is ok as a second system. Having to buy a bunch of SA mount lenses is kind of a bummer though. It's hard to justify a whole 2nd system for such limited applications. A k1 or d800 would be a lot more flexible and give better IQ even. Especially the k1 with pixel shift kicked on.

+I can't stand the Sony bodies and menue ( I still have to use them professionally ) but the "footless" Sigma adapter is really an unprofessional solution (for prof shooter)I wrote to Metabones so many timesbut their persistent answer: " we will n e v e r build a SA smart adapter ".all they needed to do is change the Canon mount for SA ... registration is the same.

You probably would have been happy with either one. You should give an SD Quattro a try some time.

BTW, I used an SD14 as my only camera for a couple of years, and it worked out just fine. I got plenty of great photos with it, and I was happy using it . . . very happy. Now I use an SD1 Merrill almost exclusively . . . though I did keep on of my Sony A65 bodies and the lenses for it, just in case the Sigma breaks down or if I need to shoot video (or if I need to shoot really fast). I have used the Sony to shoot a few landscape photos, because I don't have a super-wide lens for the Sigma SD1 Merrill yet.

Nikon wouldn't have even a fraction of the sensor R&D that Sony does though. That's why if Sony bought it, improved it, and then sold the sensors to Nikon (and others), that would be best, in my opinion :)

the camera doesn't have built-in lens correction capability? or it couldn't be fixed in post, even tho it's dng(??)? showing warts and all is helpful for readers, who want to see what the camera is capable of.

The files do seems to have a "crispness", however, they tend to be fairly noisy even at low ISO. I'm imagining this gets out of hand fairly quick. Would I call it "Game Changing"... nah, but interesting nonetheless.

I have used Sigma dp2m for quite some time, and one of the strengths of Foveon sensor is its low noise at base ISO. Have you looked at images from your everyday camera and compared them with Foveon? The difference is huge, not only in sharpness department.

Edit:Having seen the picture in this article I have to say: there's definitely something wrong with it, either processing or some other factor. Usually, pictures from Foveon sensors don't look that bad.

I have a whole lot of M42 lenses which I use on my Canon 5D and now on the SD Q H, with a simple adapter, for Leica R Leitax produces an flange and Pentax K lenses can be used when the rear aperture mecanic is removed. But because of the layer build of the sensor much of the lenses, especially wideangle are simply no good and will produce a heavy color vignette which is nearly impossible to correct. That is because the light does not fall in a 90° angle on the sensor, which will then be blocked from reaching the bottom layers. It looks better from 50mm on and to get a good Tele is quit easy. The best Vintage lenses are so far Leica R 2.8 135 & 180mm and the Tamron 90mm macro. This tested on the SD1 Merrill, the SD Q H will test come soon.

dude, that was a brilliantly snarky thing to say when the SD9 and maybe SD10 was released in 2002 and 2003.Over a decade later, we should all have moved beyond that the Foveon sensors won't be comparable to filter-based sensors, ok?

It's being theorised, and in certain cases also shown, that you don't *need* that bulge with certain optically exotic materials. *If* we get there in practical terms, *then* we will have a true game changer in photography. Lenses of hardly any weight, with little light loss, cheap(er) larger sizes of optics etc...

You answered your own question. High resolutions enable cropping, which is extremely useful / compulsory in many many use cases. High resolutions enable large prints, for which there are obviously many use cases. Etc.

So many readers here get trapped in the "I can't use this feature, so why would anyone else need it?" mindset. It's bizarre, considering that this is an enthusiast site.

for large print, the nasty high ISO is a big problem. They are not popular for a reason. If both color and high ISO not good, only extreme detail, what is the use of this "feature" This "feature" come with a big cost

Extreme high MP or supposedly extreme detail of foveon are for selling camera and with limited real useThat is my point. I always welcome real useful "feature"

the only way you'll understand is to get a sigma, shot for a while and print one image that you really like.Then come back and lets talk again. People, who did that and rave about the 3D look won't convince people on the internet with statements. Only seeing is believing.

As a Christmas gift, my girlfriend had some local art printers print (around 20" x 16" or so) 3 of my favorite images shot with one of my Sigma cameras and framed them.Being from the "digital era," this experience was seriously life changing for me in how I view art... Foveon + print = sublime

Ι think it's time for Sigma to be more serious overall with Foveon sensors. It's the only sensor which practically delivers noiseless images, no matter if the array of its use is somehow limited comparing to others and its users are few. There are fields of photography that really need the advantages Foveon sensors can offer and Sigma can be the king of these niches.

In an ideal world, all cameras use something standard like DNG, so that there's no issue with software support, and software will be cheaper. It's Sigma and Pentax (Ricoh) using DNG for now, but hopefully there will be more in the future.

Similarly, all APSC and M43 cameras ideally would use the same mount, for choices in lenses, much lower prices, and choice of camera bodies to use. You can just buy bodies, whether it's made by Sigma, Pentax, Olympus or Canon based on particular features needed for the application at the time, and use it with your set of lenses, which means more sales. For now, people are reluctant to switch systems. We do have Panasonic, Olympus, and a few others ... using the same mount. Sigma like some other niche camera makers (Samsung and Pentax) will never make it big without a good range of lenses. It would make sense for them to join M43 with their MiLCs, but they didn't.

So, prices continue to rise and only the dominant makers will survive.

We had proprietary standards for PCs 30 years ago, IBM Token Ring rather than just Ethernet, MCA bus and boards as well as ISA, later PCI... Then later there are industry standards for power supplies, ATX, and hence cables, connectors, ... That made PCs affordable in each home. The biggies like IBM who stick to their proprietary stuff vanished. This is a lesson unlearnt. All the duplicated lenses in the many brands, the different sizes and designs of EVFs and LCDs, flash units, ..., are all costing way too much, probably 10 tens as much as they what could have been. The Duopoly can be broken and prices come down to significantly grow the market (when new lens and cameras become so cheap!)

But this is the camera industry, and they would rather die than standardise, and many will die.

@TOMMI You were wrong. Those ports and slots were not off-shelves. You must be too young 30 years ago to know this.

Ports used for connecting to a network or connecting a monitor were provided at the back of expansion cards. The cards had contact edges designed to fit expansion slots, both were proprietary for IBM PCs. MCA cards and slots. Other "Cloners" used ISA cards and slots (Industry Standard Architecture) or EISA for higher performance. An IBM network card gave you a proprietary Token Ring port, which needed to be connected with Token Ring adapters-cables to Token Ring hubs called MAUs. Others use Ethernet, an industry standard. Same for memory expansion, which was mandatory given the miniscule amount on the system board, and these memory cards used proprietary slots for IBM, while others had ISA (later PCI, and other industry standard slots). .....To be continued below.

Same for graphics card and peripheral cards (for printers etc). All proprietary and super expensive MCA products for IBM. Some of those ports like printer port were standard ones on IBM PCs but they were only available through proprietary cards. An IBM PC system in a company typically costed about $10,000 (when each dollar was a lot more than today). Few people have their own PCs.

Then the use of standardised components picked up. Manufacturers were able to justify the costs of making VLSI and mass production of common components, driving costs down. The pace of change with PC technology allowed throwing old PCs away, to provide the opportunity for change. With cameras, the old lenses are still usable, delaying any movement to open standards. This hopefully will also happen with cameras one day, if the current disastrous market conditions and more use technology can change the mentality of the smaller players before they vanish.

Sorry but I have the PC in the storage with its original peripherals and disks... It has all the documents for everything else than the BIOS. This is in the line with the video documents made by the IBM about the history of the IBM PC at 1981 how they made that whole computer in less than a year, it is the fastest and first computer designed and developed by IBM that didn't have proprietary parts in it from IBM. They thought that they could control the market with the BIOS being locked. And they even got the OS from outside of the company.

The BIOS was the key and it wasn't possible to get compatible computer without IBM licensing until Compaq (later bought by the HP) reverse engineered it in clean room method and that was then the problem for IBM as it allowed Microsoft to license the PC DOS (MS DOS) to second parties. It was game over that time.

This is the thing why a PC-clones were a problem as everyone else got access to exactly same hardware. Even hobbyist could buy them!

TOMMI, I see what's the problem here. You were talking about the first IBM PC called the XT,.with its 8088 bus made by Intel, green monitor and 5 1/4 inch floppy drive, but no hard drive and many off the shelf parts. It was not exactly a computer for serious work. I have one right here. In my first message, I mentioned IBM's PC 30 years ago, ie around 1987, not 1981. That was officially called the PS/2, and it had all the proprietary things I mentioned, IBM MCA bus,.IBM.Token Ring network, IBM memory slots, etc. Aren't we happy that IBM failed and industry standards prevailed?

The IBM created the whole PC market, you got compatibility and openness that wasn't there, and even low affordable prices.

This was the key to be standard and open so everyone could provide peripherals as long they licensed the BIOS code from IBM. Back then BIOS was very crucially key software. Without it you didn't have compatibility.

The IBM PC XT was just quest for IBM to fix their openess as they realized their mistake too late.

If I would choose something to survive from that era... It would be that Microsoft and Apple should be never born and Xerox Star would have been released.

Reviews onto the Web saying that ISO 100 even does have some noise...well, can speak only for my DP2M, ISO 200 goes..but it's also best being used at ISO 100 only...and much light, where it does excel then...and the Merrill Sensor does have different than the Quadro and this 2nd Quadro Gen 3 Layers with equal Pixels, afaik.

I'd wish for a .DNG Firmware Update onto the DP Merrill Series. Since the SD1 (Merrill), Sigma should being introduce a FF-Foveon Sensor...this would really lift the Quality even way higher - also only at low ISO....Sigma Cameras with Foveon Sensor Tech are some special breed, just like the Leica M Monochrome. It's not the usual daily DSLR for shooting everything. It's a niche, but it works quite well, under the right circumstances, and the Foveon Sensor does give a special 3D Look.

actually, a FF sensor with higher photosites would increase the "high" iso Signal/Noise ratio, but only modestly.

However, I would love to have an out-of-camera DNG on my merrills, but I highly doubt that 1) the merrills have the processing power to to that and that2) there is one coder left at sigma that still works on merrill firmwares.

The sensor is 2D, and it just records the light it receives on it's (again) very 2D surface. You might praise it (or any sensor on the planet) for any unrealistic and cool-sounding-non-existent characteristics. But the sensors are as 2D as they can get :)) and so is their output.

Merrills and Quattros have different Foveon sensor designs, so we'll likely never see DNG for the Merrills. We could hold some hope for the DP Quattros, but with the release of both of the SD Quattros and no news about DNG in a future DP Quattro update I am not optimistic.

This camera is not for the most of us. There are a lot of cameras from canon, nikon, sony and so on - for the most of us.Leica is not for the most of us, Hasselblad is not for the most of us too, medium format is not for the most of us and fuji isn't it too.This camera is for base iso shooters in color and 400 in black&white. You have come down to earth and look and feel with passion.This tool is for stripped down shooters and the JPEG quality of the files are, like Fuji, very good, but the camera has its pros and cons, like a lot of us. SIGMA has now implement original Adobe DNG support, thats great. For all of us.

Very nice. I guess we can't have that with a firmware update on Merrills though? That said I don't find SPP such a huge obstacle. You only have to make sure the highlights are ok and then batch convert all similar exposures. It doesn't take forever though it's slower than I'd like and an additional step. Also SPP very rarely tilts on my PC. Less often than Photoshop.

Well, SPP in my hands to process merrill files on a quite decent pc (data on ssds, quad core overcloced to 5 GHz, lots of free ram) does not take significantly more time than processing files in lightroom.I like SPP actually. Only thing I regret is not having GPU support for merrills X3F files and that viewing 100% needs the extra calculations. That stinks.

Actually I never had real problems with SPP, not more than with any extremely RAM hungry Adobe products anyway. As a former large format photographer I make my composition before I shoot and I still measure the light with a spotmeter. Then in SPP I only develop the RAW, adjust contrast and color, put sharpness depending the use and done. Photoshop or any similiar product I only use for dodging and burning if nescessary or removing unwanted objects. I also make for every shooting one test shot with a X-Rite color chart, from that I make a profile which is it for the whole set to develop in SPP. No complaints.

Dream on - it is a camera for 0,0000000001 percent of photographers and motives.Maybe good for science and hopefully some day comes a better sensor-architecture for all cameras.Bayer-Pattern and JPEG are dated and waiting for innovation, but Sigma can not deliver for most of us.

actually, it's a quite applicable camera and most of us would benefit from the use of a sigma ;) I wouldn't mind the size, as the ergonomics are beautiful.I shoot my merrills in good light and on a summer vacation I used a DP3M quite successfully to capture memories.

What you cannot do is low-light, agreed.And you don't want to burst-shot your way through a trip or vacation. The amount of data to handle can be... not very fulfilling!

but in terms of motives? where is the limit? except of sports or other high throughput scenarios or high iso demands like astro, this camera could to it. question is, if the photographer could handle it *muhhaha*

Don't get me wrong, I've always been a Foveon fan since forever, and actually wanted to buy this camera up until 1 hour ago, but...

Am I seeing things here? Apply just a mild touch of sharpening and noise becomes super visible in the shadows (in some cases in the mid tones as well, ISO 100).

And huh???? Shadow lifting by just 1 stop reveals horrendous blotches of green and magenta, like the ones I used to get with a defective Leaf Aptus unit, which I demanded Phase One to trade for a new unit (which they did for free).

Hi, I haven't examined these particular files, but other samples, and it's worth noting that Quattro files definitely require noise reduction, including colour NR, and not just the default LR/ACR settings. Try to optimize NR first. Think of them as the opposite of a Bayer raw file, which doesn't get universal condemnation for being naturally blur-imbued and needing sharpening. Instead, Quattro raw files are naturally noise-imbued and need NR (and not sharpening). I made a few comments on Quattro DNG files a few months ago, starting here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59030643 - note my suggestion of chroma NR 50 in LR.

I didn't check it myself on these files but thought the quattros are better in that respect.For my merrills it is painful. When I didn't get the exposure right, my colors fall apart in most cases. And trying to recover shadows is a delicate area, leaving me bracketing most of the time to have the right file to start processing with.Actually, the bracketing mode of the merrills is pretty cool. You have to press the shutter 3 individual times to finish the bracketing. Although frustrating at times, it really helps in some situations to have the pictures you want.

wow, pairing the SDQH with the 85/1.4 art will get you amazing results.I am really thinking hard to invest into the system with the 85mm and 35mm lenses. But it's a costly and heavy sollution for a very limited ISO range, although you gain more light with the art lenses... But as much as I would love it, the best option for me still is the use of the compact merrills. Small, lightweight inexpensive cameras compared to the much larger SDQs with fullframe lenses...If only the quattros were more compact like the merrills...

If dp Quattro cameras are too big for you then what possible interest can you have in the sd Quattro?Every Quattro article anywhere on the internet attracts anti-Quattro hate mail from Old Sigma acolytes, and frankly I think it's pathetic. Poor Sigma got the worst customers in the world.

No the dp merrills are amazing for what they produce send the size but stick the 50-100 f1.8 Art on the sdq-h and goto 100mm f1.8 and shoot a full lengh shot of someone and you get amazing detail and subject isolation that can't be done on the dp3m.

I love my dp1m and dp3m but I tend to use the sdQ-H these days with the 18-35 f1.8 and 50-100 f1.8 in my bag but it is much more weight and size.

digital image quality hasn't changed much for years but they keep selling us so called "new technologies". My 5d mk2 makes better photos than this sigma camera, even better than my fuji xt10, which I purchased a couple of years back. Seems like the race is on to sell you the latest and the greatest and we forget that the lens is what makes the biggest difference these days, not the sensors.

uhm... I highly doubt that your 5D II makes better pictures than a XT10.You do. Maybe because you get along with the canon better.Or maybe you like the files coming from the canon better.There are other people, having better results from a XT10, I believe.

Where I agree is that the importance of good lenses and that output quality today is amazing! it certainly is enough. I know a photographer doing amazing stuff with his old D300s. It has limitations, but photos can be gorgeous if done right.

ever hold one?I love my merrills for handling. once set-up, the photography part is straight forward.The Quattros received some criticism but some people loved the handling.

This camera however, is amazing in terms of handling. Maybe not for somebody that had a CaNikon for the better part of his/her life and does not want to relearn.But for me, haptics (except the flange that made the camera funny around your neck coming from a mirrorless background with super-light lenses) was so good that I really think about ditching my DP2M and DP3M. And I love those.

I also feel that the sdQ/sdQH is a great feeling camera, even my wifes first reaction of holding one was "now this is a camera" as she hates the smaller a7ii, even my k3 which was a great camera design anoyed her as she missed my old nikon d3.

Only if you like spending too much time editing afterwards, skin tones are very poor in every dng photo. And they are all off differently so there's no quick set up to fix all at once, each one requires individual attention.

I've shot studio work in JPG on the sdQ-H at 51mp and it was fairly consistent and delivered great results, I've also used it in JPG to do packet shots of plants for a local plant nursery because the IQ was better than that of my Sony in Raw (a7ii).

X3f is also great, I've not used DNG much as I felt i got more out of editing the x3f but its something I will keep an eye on but I do know someone who uses DNG and gets on well with it using colorchecker.

If you want to see what this camera can do in a studio setting then check one of my images which was a raw to jpg (no editing).

Why has DP Review never done a product review on the SD Quattro? The camera has been on the market long enough to justify a review. While at least some of the images shown are interesting enough to stimulate some interest, wouldn't a review of this very different camera be justified?

I most certainly hope so.But then again, when you think about a Sigma camera, reviews do not really help you. Because the use for a Sigma is too individual, in my opinion.

Actually, for most of us sigma shooters, this is all we needed:"Image quality can be amazing in 3 out of 10 exposures, but you really need to think carefully before taking the picture and you need to work afterwords as well for a good image."

I am not a Sigma shooter although I have been impressed by the prints from Foveon I have seen. The paucity of Sigma reviews have been a stumbling block for me to ever purchase one. The only ones I've read praise the images @ ISO 200 and below and not so good above 2 to 400 ISO. I'd really like to see an in depth review some day.

I bought an SD10, years ago, and still have it, and the reason I bought it was that after I looked at the images I realized that the only way I was going to get images like that was to have an SD10. And it was some work to use SPP. But the images are worth it.

Before the SD10 I mainly shot MF, and I was accustomed to a max ISO of 400. Also, really, the details from the Sigma are great BUT: the color is excellent too, particularly in the Q and Q-H. Recent users in the Sigma forum are showing images with good detail at ISO 800 and decent at 1600. But really, if you really want image quality the only thing you get at ISO above 800 (from any camera) are "usable" images, not the very best IQ.

Reviewers tend to be hard on the Sigma cameras precisely because they are different, but that doesn't make a lot of sense, unless you want every camera to be the same.

Richard,You are absolutely correct. Coming from many years of analogue ( film ) photography, I routinely shoot between ISO 100 to 400 and have little reason to go any higher. But I have had those conditions where ISO 800 to 1600 is necessary or just forget the shot. I am glad I have that option, though seldom used, and if I am going to be forced to shoot at that sensitivity, I'd like to know that the image won't be ruined by excessive noise and clutter. That is my only reason for raising the issue and I do wish some reviewers ( DPR, are you listening?) would give us a review that goes beyond the cursory "First Look" and then drop the matter.Jim

Well....I had one of my older MFT cameras converted to infrared. So...I realize a Quattro would be an occasional-use camera.....but I like to experiment and have fun. ...but I just could not see buying this as I have giant FF and MFT Kits...and using a different interface, different sensor size and different workflow is enough.I would not get into it knowing that I would have to have dedicated lenses. It is a shame.....because it is a ILC and I would love to play with one. Maybe I can find a fixed-lens Quattro used. I could get my feet wet there. Not sure.

@mescalama the sigma SD mount is a pentax mount with 1mm shorter flange distance and the same canon electrical comunication. There will be no adapters. But if you love the sigma, you can get sigma to mount convert all your sigma lenses to this mount.

If you were really skilled you can get a EF mount with matching screws and unscrew the lens mount and swap them. This sometimes worked but very rare. As stated the pin out and comunication is the same, but mounts different. The registration distance is also similar. But this is not ideal. You can dig up some really old posts in the sigma forum about people trying this.

Kind of reminds me of old ccd sensors with better resolution but still the same noise issues, weird color artifacts, really poor jpegs, hard to work with shadow areas and lots of yellow tinge at ISO 400 or above. Only thing going for it is iso 100 resolution.

I'd take this versus unconvincing images from CMOS sensors, including the recent Medium format cameras. I don't shoot JPEGs but there are many uers telling that SOOC JPEGs are better, if not excellent in the SD Quattro

The lower resolution mid (green) and lower (red) layer data is interpolated to fit into the DNG defintion of non-mosaic data types. X3F raw data is not interpolated. Rawdigger told me that it is within a 12bit range.

Well, my boy, that is what happens when you mindlessly criticise others work. It invites the blowtorch to applied to ones own feet. The sample gallery is designed to demonstrate the capabilities of the sensor, not to display soul.

Im not trying to be provocative or anything...merrills and previous had huge difference from bayer sensors...i've downloaded files from the quatros...sky is noisy...sharpness and detail for foliage are simply not there anymore...

Right and is difficult to tell the difference. I advise you take a look at the studio shots and portraits of the DPR staff. It is almost MF like quality where a MF camera might be smoother at the pixel level with less noise.

The resolution is lens limited here. The resolution of the sensor is better than 24MPx bayer. Not better than 36MPx bayer IMHO, so I'll just recomend buying an a7R mark I for the price the are going now and be happy.

@worldcup1982 simple tests and experienced reviewers all agree that the 19 MP Quattro files have the perceptual resolution and detail approx of a 36 MP D810, and the 25 MP Quattro H like a 50 MP 5DSR. You and your claims are on a limb on your own, I'm afraid.

@Mescalamba a 19 MP Quattro camera set to Low Res takes 3-layer images of 5MP:5MP:5MP and they still look like the high-res Quattro files in terms of colour, they do not look like Merrill or earlier Sigmas thank goodness. So your reasoning is wrong.

What's the hubbub? DNG can only represent Bayer raw formats. The Sigma DNG is a just a TIFF in DNG container. Your raw is already cooked in DNG. The difference with jpeg is mostly in the number of bits. So you could as well edit the jpeg files from the camera with the same success, except for the pictures that require a serious surgery, which are probably not worth saving anyway.

@meuh right. The DNG files seems to have noise reduction baked in unlike in SPP there are more luminance and color noise to be found in the image. Therefore SPP, it offers more flexibility in noise control versus acuity

Spent an inordinate amount of time analyzing the DNG files through Lightroom, I realized that there seems to be none of any compromise versus SPP. It recovers highlights quite well and there is no issue with noise or color either.

I wonder then what causes SPP to be too slow despite blazing fast in the other software. The file size is also a concern.

Computers have general purpose processors designed to do many things well, but they can still be outrun by "application specific integrated circuit" silicon that does just a few hardwired things.

Graphics cards are a great example - they run circles around the world's best CPUs at certain kinds of "embarrassingly parallel" math common to graphics, but are slow or even unable to compute other basic problems.

Amazing detail but lots of pp work needed to correct color and excessive contrast, let alone flare and other artifacts. Correcting photos taken with this camera requires advanced image processing skills and a good deal of time, but the results can be extraordinary.

Sigma cameras are some of the prettiest.DP Quattro looks bloody cool. Sdq H looks so sexy. They have near zero presence in south east asia (apart from their lenses) unfortunately. So prices remain high. 😭

The ergonomics is not the best or prettiest, but it's a trade-off we have to live with. The problem with the DP0 is not the hockey stick but the big and unbalanced lens - not the only camera suffering from the same problem though. The image quality makes up for it more than enough though. Hopefully the DNG option comes to the DP Quattro line of cameras as well. The DP2 is quite pocketable however.

Sigma announced several products at CP+ 2016, including two new cameras. The interchangeable lens SD Quattro And SD Quattro H represent a departure for the company in two senses - both are mirrorless cameras, and the 'H' features an APS-H format sensor. More conventional are a 50-100mm F1.8 DC HSM Art zoom and 30mm F1.4 DC DN Contemporary prime for mirrorless cameras. Read more

Sigma has announced two mirrorless ILCs: the Sigma sd Quattro and the sd Quattro H. Both cameras use the company's full-depth SA lens mount as used in its SLRs, and are built around APS-C and APS-H sized sensors, respectively. Both use the company's Foveon technology that captures different color information at different depths in the sensor. Read more

Many cameras today include built-in image stabilization systems, but when it comes to video that's still no substitute for a proper camera stabilization rig. The Ronin-S aims to solve that problem for DSLR and mirrorless camera users, and we think DJI has delivered on that promise.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Professional commercial photographer Moe Lauchert shares an incredible gallery of film photographs he captured on Ilford HP5 with a Nikonos 5 while serving as a diver at NASA's Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory in Houston, Texas.

We've been shooting with a beta version of the Sony a9's upcoming firmware 5.0. While there's much more analysis to come, we can say it makes for a dead simple AF tracking user experience. Take a look at some of our samples.

The Tamron 17-35mm F2.8-4 is a compact and light-weight lens for full-frame Canon and Nikon DSLRs. We took it on grand tour of Seattle's top tourist spots and found it makes a pleasant, albeit wide, walking around lens.

Fujifilm has announced its new GF 100-200mm F5.6 R LM OIS WR tele-zoom lens. The lens, equivalent to 79-158mm when mounted on a GFX camera, has image stabilization (with a claimed 5 stops of shake reduction), a linear AF motor and weather-sealing.

Amongst all of the camera news yesterday, Sony also announced its new Imaging Edge mobile app, which replaces PlayMemories Mobile. Three desktop applications have also been updated, adding support for time-lapse movie creation.

Our intrepid team is in San Diego, for the launch of the new Sony a6400. In this short overview video, Carey, Chris and Jordan talk through the main specifications of the new camera, and what they might mean for photographers and videographers.

The Sony a6400 is the company's new midrange mirrorless camera, whose standout features include an advanced autofocus system, flip-up touchscreen LCD and oversampled 4K footage with Log support. Learn more as we go hands-on with the a6400.

Sony has announced major firmware updates for the a7R III, a7 III and a9. All three cameras gain improved Eye-AF, the ability to recognize and focus on animals' eyes, and timelapse capability. The a9 gets more sophisticated subject tracking.